Abstract

Volumes as insightful as Critical International Political Economy: Dialogue, Debate and Dissensus (edited by Stuart Shields, Ian Bruff and Huw Macartney) and Cultural Political Economy (edited by Jacqueline Best and Matthew Paterson) are likely to be read differently by different audiences. The editors’ astute responses thus allow us to better appreciate their original objectives and address their shared concern: a too narrow reading of the volumes. Within the limited space of this rejoinder, I engage with this particular concern to clarify that there is no one right way to think about the global political economy or global political economies in the plural.